MacOn v. Gower
This text of 183 P.3d 227 (MacOn v. Gower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Petitioner appeals from a judgment, following a trial, denying post-conviction relief. Specifically, before the post-conviction court, petitioner alleged that his trial counsel had been constitutionally inadequate in 20 particulars, including “[c]ounsel failed to file a notice of appeal after being requested to do so by the Petitioner,” and that the sentence the trial court imposed was “illegal” in several particulars. The court rejected all of petitioner’s claims. On appeal, petitioner challenges only the post-conviction court’s rejection of his allegation pertaining to trial counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal after being asked to do so. The state concedes that, under Shipman v. Gladden, 253 Or 192, 199, 453 P2d 921 (1969), the post-conviction court’s disposition with respect to that specification was erroneous. We accept that concession as well founded. Id.
Reversed and remanded on specification that “Counsel failed to file a notice of appeal after being requested to do so by the Petitioner”; otherwise affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
183 P.3d 227, 219 Or. App. 485, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macon-v-gower-orctapp-2008.